TigerHawk

TigerHawk (ti*ger*hawk): n. 1. The title of this blog and the nom de plume of its founding blogger; 2. A deep bow to the Princeton Tigers and the Iowa Hawkeyes; 3. The nickname for Iowa's Hawkeye logo. Posts include thoughts of the day on international affairs, politics, things that strike us as hilarious and personal observations. The opinions we express are our own, and not those of each other, our employers, our relatives, our dead ancestors, or unrelated people of similar ethnicity.

Monday, February 13, 2006

The Gorebot: attacking America from the fountainhead of jihad

By TigerHawk at 2/13/2006 12:18:00 AM

Al Gore has travelled to the heart of the Wahabbi Muslim world and attacked the United States. One is almost forced to wonder whether he has completely lost his mind.

Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

This is asinine both substantively and procedurally.

Substantively, the idea that cracking down on Saudi visa applications is "playing into al Qaeda's hands" is laughable. Had we scrutinized Saudi visas a little more carefully in 2001, thousands of Americans who died on September 11 that year might well have lived. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on that day were Saudi nationals. If we had denied some or all of them visas, exactly how would that have "played into al Qaeda's hands"?

Perhaps Gore is suggesting that notwithstanding the obvious benefits of our tough visa policies, if they irritate the House of Saud, or just the average wealthy Saudi, the Saudis will abandon the fight against al Qaeda out of pique. If so, his point is absurd. The House of Saud and al Qaeda are at war, and have been going at each other with hammer and tongs since May 2003. Whether or not some Saudis are offended by American visa policies, that inconvenience -- or indignity, even -- is nothing compared to the mortal threat of the jihadis.

Procedurally, Gore's speech is repugnant. It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy. Whether or not one agrees with Gore on the substance, if he wants to change American policy to let in more Saudis the only way he can do that it is to campaign for that change among influential Americans. It is, however, another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally in the war of our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies in front of the affected foreign audience. It is especially problematic to mess with Saudi political opinions, which are subject to intensive influence and coercion by internal actors and the United States, al Qaeda, and Iran, among other powers. Supposing that some Saudis were inclined to be angry over the American visa policy, won't they be more angry after Al Gore has told them that they're being humiliated? How is that helpful?

Finally, Gore's outrage at the American treatment of Arab and Muslim captives may be genuine, and it may even be worthy of expression in the United States, where we aspire to do better than press accounts suggest we have done. But whatever nasty things we have done in exceptional cases in time of war, they pale in comparison to the standard operating procedure in Saudi Arabia. So this is what Gore has done: he has traveled to Jiddah to explain to the elites of an ugly and tyrannical regime that the big problem in the world isn't the oppression of Arabs by Arabs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, but the mistreatment of a few hundred Arabs in the United States. This is like visiting Moscow in 1970 and denouncing the United States in front of a bunch of Communist Party deputies for the killings at Kent State. Indeed, the differences in that comparison reflect badly on Gore.

There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections. Gore's speech is both destructive and disloyal, not because of its content -- which is as silly as it is subversive -- but because of its location and its intended audience. He should be ashamed. But he won't be. The leadership of the Democratic party should disavow Gore's Jiddah speech. But it won't.

123 Comments:

Gore is a complete arsehole. What's disheartening is that his party couldn't see fit to run a better candidate. What's pathetic is that there will be many lefties who agree with him. What's subversive is that he's collecting donations for the left from the ME. He's a tool, selling lies and soundbytes to be used against us overseas. I just hope the GOP crafts a nice ad showing how people like Gore, Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Bill's Husband, etc. think.

Al Qaeda declared war on us in 1996 and again in 1998, and then sustained that declaration with numerous attacks (including 9/11). Versus the jihadis, in any case, we are in a state of war on their initiative. I am unaware of any requirement that we "declare war back," even if we did so on a couple of occasions in our history.

When is a President going to do it right and ask Congress for a declaration of war. Then treacherous fools like Gore could be slapped in prison for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Up until yesterday I was asking more or less the same question. Yesterday I listened to the audio of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Rumsfeld v. Padilla. Available at www.oyez.org

It seems that Congress HAS declared war in the Constitutional meaning of the term. There was some point in the Habeas Corpus argument that turned on whether or not war had been declared. The gov't, Padilla's attorney and, most importantly the Supremes agreed that the December 2002 (Date?)Congressional Resolution was legally and constitutionally a "declaration of war" and that the President's subsequent actions were governed under the war powers clause of the Constitution.

It's refreshing to hear a politician acknowledge that America's hysteria following 9/11 resulted in some abuses. This is true. The next logical statement is to apologize, the way one would apologize to a friend you'd mistaken for a burglar and menaced with a quail gun. Then you and the menaced/menacing friend sit down and talk about how to prevent burglaries without shooting innocent people in the face by accident.

Again Hawk, any voice that isn't in complete concert with the DoD regarding the WOT is guilty of what? Treason?

Once you calm down about Mr. Gore ask yourself whether the abuses Gore refers to (outside of the Visa bit - I don't really understand his reasoning there) might actually have unnecessarily ratcheted up the jihadists' fervor. Gore is right: Gitmo is bad for America, torture is bad for America, secret detentions are bad for America because they violate the values we stand for as Americans and give motivation and purpose (some might call it aid and comfort) to our enemies.

That insane Gore also said, "Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Why!?! Did he say that most Americans are against torture and indefinite detention without a trial? Heresy! Traitorous Treasoner!

The completely unhinged, over the shark, loony maniac went on to talk about Iran, "Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous.""

Somebody stop Gore before he totally gets us nuked! He's saying that Americans aren't for torture and that Iran could be dangerous and that middle eastern nations would be well served by loudly opposing Iranian nuclear aspirations!

Yes, Gore is off his meds.But I have a more relevant question.What makes you think that "The House of Saud and al Qaeda are at war, and have been going at each other with hammer and tongs since May 2003?"I am actually quite interested in this perception because from all available data that I have, it seems that al-Saud is merely wacking the more virulent Jihaddis who completely flip out and attack the "royals," while supporting al Qaeda and every other Islamist (Sunni) Jihaddi group in the world, all over the world. As near as I can tell, that hasn't let up a whit.Why do you think the contrary?Or do you?

I have a serious question: What's Gore's motive for traveling to Saudi Arabia and bashing the US? Some theories:

1) Money: Was Gore paid for the speech? How much? Is it part of a larger political fundraising effort?

2) Publicity: Is there a publicity angle?

3) Gore Is Nuts: Does he just like hearing himself talk?

Seriously, someone had to invite Gore to travel to Saudi Arabia, somebody had to make travel arrangements, somebody had to write him a speech, etc. Does anyone know who arranged the trip, who Gore's speechwriter was, etc? It's all just baffling.

Hey Screwy Hoolie,Where in the US were the arabs rounded up and abused? And many people, at least the ones I have talked to (liberals, I might add) do not think that Gitmo was a bad idea, or secret detentions, or torture in some cases. War is not pretty and shouldn't be. Compared to what the Saudis dish out to their own citizens, gays, women, or God forbid a Christian with a Bible, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is child's play. But I doubt Gore would point out his and their hypocrisy to their faces. Hmm..wonder if he brought up how slavery, of which they still participate and promote, and oil, the fuel to the Global warming (of which he blames the US for) are no-nos? Didn't think so.

screwie hoolie wants us to APOLOGIZE to the Saudis, the main proponents of the Wahhabism that drives alQaeda! He wants us to IGNORE the fact that all 19 9/11hijackers were Saudis! He wants us to GROVEL over unlawful acts committed by a few un-disciplined soldiers, who were punished, while himself being willing to IGNORE the suicide bombers and beheaders, and to TRIVIALIZE 911 itself. Excuse me, I gotta puke! I've seen self-hatred before, but seldom have I seen it so nakedly on display. To hoolie, America is the problem, notprimitive Islamo-Fascism. WE are the bad guys!

Finally, he doesn't seem to grasp that liberal politicians like the Clintons, Gore and Carter, who formerly held or now national office, should not be going to foreign countries to criticize their own, especially in a time of war.If the Supremes agree that we are in a state of war, then lets clap the lot of them in irons.

One thing's for sure: Gore's cheese has long since slipped off its cracker. He's become the Dem's Captain Ahab: obsessed, monomaniacal, and doomed to failure.

First, my earlier post said that all 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. That should have been 15 of 19.

Second, the most recent anonymous poster has his logical categories screwed up. He points to a book claiming that the Bushes are too cozy to the House of Saud as evidence to back Gore's claim that the Bush administration committed terrible abuses against Saudis and other Arabs? Whaaa...?

Second, he claims that Bush lifted Gore's position on freeing ourselves from Saudi oil as, what? grounds for Gore to grovel in front of the Saudis? As "proof" that Gore should have been elected President? What juvenile chickenbleep. Back to Kos with you!

At one time or other, I think we all heard a Lyndon Larouche speech. For the first three minutes, we thought, "Hey, maybe there's something to this guy," and then he dropped a completely screwball conspiracy theory into paragraph six and we thought, "This guy's lost it. This is where I get off."

Yeah, Al might have made a couple strong points, but that doesn't absolve him of the blatantly anti-American tone and content of the speech or his long term memory losses (Visa express).

Additionally, take the totality of the speeches he's delivered since 2004--I don't think it takes a licensed psychologist to see this man is a little angry and there is no possible way he would have had the same thoughts (let alone anger) after 9/11 if he was President. In other words, is he saying that he would have maintained or increased the amount of visas for Saudis after 9/11? I doubt it.

The Bush administration instituted a policy toward Saudi immigration in June, 2001, called "Visa Express." Under this bent rule, Saudis could obtain U.S. visas without being photographed or having to apply in person.

3=Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" program.

140=Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.

Bandar bin Sultan - Prince Bandar has endured controversy over allegations in the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward that President George W. Bush informed him of the decision to invade Iraq ahead of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Also, the book alleged a deal had been worked out to reduce oil prices just ahead of the November 2004 election. Bandar publicly endorsed President Bush.

Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other Western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime MinisterTony Blair, made a plea at the forum for women's rights, telling Saudi leaders that the dearth of women in the work force was "undermining economic potential" of the kingdom.

It was a forum in which lots of different opinions were expressed.Such a complicated world. So many things to remember, facts to keep straight.

Droolcap: You refer to "unlawful acts committed by a few un-disciplined soldiers". But studies have suggested abuses were systematic and widespread, not just the acts of the odd bad apples (see the Taguba report), and, further, that the abuses were the result of contradictory and ambiguous policy direction from the chain of command and DoD, not arbitrary decisions by junior military personnel (see the report by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger). There is considerable care and oversight in the American system -- testament to our traditions of the rule of law -- but there have been major holes in the system in terms of accountability for abuses and clarity in rules from the top.

Yes and it isn't like GWB regularly blows the saudi royal family and refuses to condemn them for their support of Bin Ladin. Also it is not like 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Sauid Arabia...not one from Iraq...so why aren't we there? You hypocritical windbags never address this issue because you know it makes GWB look like the whore he is and it renders all your arguments about Iraq obsolete

"...what? grounds for Gore to grovel in front of the Saudis? As "proof" that Gore should have been elected President? What juvenile chickenbleep."

Haha. Your pathetic, and irrational hatred of Al Gore manifests itself in statements that have no roots in reality. Did anyone say anything about how Gore should have been elected President? If you choose to see the hypocrisy in Bush's latest speech that way, then that's your own conclusion! Groveling in front of the Saudis? You must be kidding. Did you read the article? Do you even know what Visa Express is? http://www.riprense.com/Visaexpress.htmGore made a complex and nuanced point, something you bushbots can't seem to grasp. But go back to your old "Gore is not a people person"..."Gore looks bad in earth tones"..."Gore said he INVENTED the internet!"...."Gore said he was the inspiration for Love Story!"You people are pathetic.

BushCo discreetely got the Bin Laden relatives out of the U.S. immediately after 9/11. Every airplane was grounded but Bush the Saudi-asskisser, made sure that his oily interests would not be threatened.

Now, THAT is treason. THAT is "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Of course, you, Bushites , are too busy brainlessly adoring your Fuhrer, and making sure that you can shout "Sieg Heil" to even see that your lying sack of shit of a president is a traitor to this great nation.

If the roles had been reversed regarding the 911, any American citizen that were in Saudi Arabia would have been treated far worse than any supposed problems that Gore was ranting about. Americans have no rights in Saudi Arabia, especially religious ones. If I am not mistaken all of the muslim prisoners held by the US have the Koran and are allowed to pray facing Mecca.

Anonymous, you're an angry person aren't you? Just like your hero, Al Gore. Wow, are all you leftists this angry? That must be terrible for you, but I guess it's good for the mental health profession.

Tell me this - what if somehow the Dems were able to get Bush was out of the picture. Let's say they miraculously gain political power (I know this is absurd but work with me here)? What would they do to protect us from Islamic terrorism? Or does this particular threat even exist in your mind? I'm hoping you're going to say something about how we should "apologize to the oppressed peoples from the ME for taking their oil", or other some such nonsense. You leftists really amuse me.

It's amazing to read that people who think Al Gore is both stupid, wrong and unpatriotic (because that's what he is , in this case) are labeled as Bushbots and Bush-worshippers --- AS IF huge numbers of conservatives don't oppose Bush's policies on immigration, spending, the Medicare drug fiasco, and his stance that Islam is a "religion of peace" -- among other policy differences.

YES, we know what the Visa Expresss program was, and YES we have been appalled by it. but it was an extension of a liberal (as in lax) visa program that the State dept had been running for the Saudis and other countries for YEARS.

Secondly, such a program indicates a laxness to the Saudis that belies Gore's claim that the Bush admin treated Arabs with terrible harshness. On that point, he is just plain WRONG.Read this and STFU!

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/index.htm

The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks

June 2003 Office of the Inspector General

Michelle Malkins comments on the report's findings:

"Almost all of the detainees received written word of their charges within 30 days or less. In fact, the report found only 24 cases out of the 762 where it took more than a month to serve notice of charges. And of those cases, the inspector general acknowledged that there were numerous legitimate reasons for delay, such as logistical disruptions in New York City after Sept. 11, including electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents.

As for alleged harassment and abuse of detainees, the inspector general's report stated that "we did not find evidence of a pattern of physical abuse of September 11 detainees" at one of two facilities investigated. At the other, 12 of 19 detainees claimed they were subjected to "some form of physical abuse." It does appear there was at least one brutish guard (since fired) who acted unjustly and that some detainees experienced uncomfortable conditions while in confinement. But none of the allegations of either physical or verbal abuse of detainees was sufficient to press criminal charges.

The Washington Post attacked the Justice Department's cruelty in holding "people unfortunate enough to have a problem with their immigration status." Page 62 of the inspector general's report, for example, cites the purportedly outrageous delay in releasing an illegal alien who had come under suspicion because of his employment with a Middle Eastern airline. The detainee had been ordered kicked out of the country way back in 1995 for violating immigration laws, but defied the order for six years. In October 2001, he was arrested based on a lead received by the FBI. It took three and a half months for the FBI to clear him.

What's more outrageous: that paperwork oversights and overloaded caseworkers led the FBI to hold this detainee for a little longer than necessary, or that hundreds of thousands of such deportation fugitives are considered by Post editorial writers and their ilk as "run-of-the-mill immigration cases" who should be left alone?"

Keep it up, Kossites: your idiotic stances, and your willingness to drink the Kool-Aid for fools like Gore are guaranteeing that conservatives will be running the US government for a long, long time to come.

Simply stated, you are not serious people and you cannot be trusted with the defense of the United States of America.

"Anonymous, you're an angry person aren't you? Just like your hero, Al Gore. Wow, are all you leftists this angry? That must be terrible for you, but I guess it's good for the mental health profession.

Angry? Go ahead with your Republican Narratives. "Hilary is ANGRY." "the Left is ANGRY." "You are all so ANGRY." IS that some kind of argument in your world? Is this the playground? You have chosen to inflate the context of a Gore quote, in order to inflame the ANGER of your fellow right wing sychophants. What else is the purpose of your post? I asked you if you read the article. Can you grasp nuance?

"Tell me this - what if somehow the Dems were able to get Bush was out of the picture. Let's say they miraculously gain political power (I know this is absurd but work with me here)? What would they do to protect us from Islamic terrorism? Or does this particular threat even exist in your mind? I'm hoping you're going to say something about how we should "apologize to the oppressed peoples from the ME for taking their oil"

Tell me what the current administration is doing to "protect us." Does that neat little threat level indicator on Faux News help you? Do you base your decision to go to Wal Mart and buy your groceries on whether the threat level is at "elevated" or whatever the next step up is?Is the war in Iraq doing anything to make us more safe? Would it not have been smart to follow diplomatic means to determine that Saddam had no WMDs to begin with? Was he not a secular leader in a region rife with Ismlamic fundamentalism? Is Iraq now not only our money pit, a training ground for new terrorists, a cause for terrorist recruitment, a distraction from real threats to our national security like Iran and North Korea? How about outing undercover agents as a means of smearing and attempting to discredit critics of the run up to war? How about illegal wire tapping, in violation of the FISA court which would have granted warrants up to 72 hours after survellance began?

Would the Democrats do these things? Can they keep us safe? Noooo... Bwaaaahahaaaa. We need the "tough on terrorism" Republicans to watch out for us! That is, while theyre not taking money from Jack Abramoff, obstructing justice, lying us into wars, protecting the Saudi interests which led directly to 911, etc.

Why don't YOU tell US what you think the Democrats would do if they took power? Let me guess: we'd set up an Al Qaeda embassy! We'd send our troops even LESS body armor!We'd all pledge our allegiance to France!

"BushCo discreetely got the Bin Laden relatives out of the U.S. immediately after 9/11. Every airplane was grounded but Bush the Saudi-asskisser, made sure that his oily interests would not be threatened."

I'll have to call BS on this one. No Saudis flew when others could not.

I really think it is high time for the liberal left to educate themselves about Saddam Hussein and his chemical/biological weapons.

Somehow (I don't understand how!) it has now become an article of faith that Saddam Hussein didn't have any such things.

But he not only had them: he used them! He used them on many different occasions, and killed thousands of innocent people! This is not open to debate, folks.

Not only that, but the entire song-and-dance between the end of the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom was entirely about Saddam's programs to develop more chemical and biological weapons, as well as nuclear weapons! What were those one-zillion UN resolutions about? What were those UN inspectors about?

Anyone of normal curiosity now knows that Saddam moved all of these dangerous weapons out of Iraq and into Syria when he realized that the jig was up. Don't believe me: the head of the Israeli Mossad says so, and so does Georges Sada in his recent book, "Saddam's Secrets."

Since Saddam is not likely to ask for those weapons back, the burning question now is: what is the Syrian government going to do with this massive cache -- about 100 airplanes and uncounted trucks took part in the transfer from Iraq to Syria.

Of course, these inconvenient facts put the kabosh on the easy, nitwit slogan, "Bush lied, thousands died." Somehow, the left in this country does not seem to realize, even now, that the President who lied was LBJ. So far as I can tell, George Bush has been utterly straight with the American people about the war in Iraq.

BushCo discreetely got the Bin Laden relatives out of the U.S. immediately after 9/11. Every airplane was grounded but Bush the Saudi-asskisser, made sure that his oily interests would not be threatened.

When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

Later, of course, his story changed:

“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”

Of course, Clarke has lied about so many things. Even the Time mag review of his book found it unbelievable.

"Actually, Richard Clarke admitted (after MISLEADING THE 9/11 COMMITTEE about it earlier) that HE IS THE ONE WHO AUTHORIZED THE BIN LADENS TO BE FLOWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY:"

Good point but it doesn't matter anyway as they were not spirited out during the grounding but rather flew after after flights resumed on the 13th (and after being interviewd byt the FBI where warranted)

"Actually, Richard Clarke admitted (after MISLEADING THE 9/11 COMMITTEE about it earlier) that HE IS THE ONE WHO AUTHORIZED THE BIN LADENS TO BE FLOWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY:"

Good point but it doesn't matter anyway as they were not spirited out during the grounding but rather flew after after flights resumed on the 13th (and after being interviewd byt the FBI where warranted)

He knows that his comments are offensive to Americans, groveling to the Saudis, and wrong as a matter of fact.

However, for the PC-multi-culti self-hating Kossites, Moveons, Sheehanites, and Code Pinks this is great stuff. Al Gore is running for President so needs their primary votes and money. Despite "inventing the internet" he doesn't understand that these words will be dug up against him and he'll go down to miserable defeat.

Did we "mistreat" Muslims who overstayed their visas after 9/11? No. The 9/11 hijackers pulled the same stunt (overstaying) so predictably anyone who was overstaying got pulled in. Admission into the US by foreigners is not a right but a privilege that the American Govt can revoke at any time. Nor should MORE potential hijackers be allowed into the US the technical word for such an action is "stupid."

People want and need an alternative to GWB's policies regarding pandering and appeasement of the Saudis. Going even more overboard in pandering to them is outrageous and pathetic and shows that while the Republicans hardly fight, Dems won't even think about fighting terrorists intent on killing Americans.

Finally, Gore is GUTLESS. I expect weasel words and platitudes coming from GWB's Admin and the State Dept Arabists regarding freedom of speech and supporting our ally Denmark. I had some faint hopes that Gore would find a spine and tell the Saudis to shut the hell up and deal with their own problems not stir up jihad over a set of innocuous cartoons.

Gore? A gutless, pandering appeaser. Which applies to most/all of the Dems. What else can you say. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech is freedom of speech. There is no but.

I just like to point out (every chance I get) that Richard Clarke has lied over and over again.

And if it was treason to let the bin Ladens go (as Michael Moore, et al, love to charge, then their hero - the one they're continually using to bash the Bush administration over the head with - is the one who committed it!)

"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

You Gore-ons can try to spin it any way you want, but Gore DID falsely claim to have CREATED the internet. And funny, my thesaurus says a synonym for create is "invent".

But did Gore create or invent the internet's foundation, ARPANET? DARPANET? Nope. They go back a long way.

Face it, drones: he's a whackjob.And to the extent you guys believe him,or defend him when he is clearly out to lunch, you're whackjobs too.

Gore is nuts, plain and simple. All democrats are nuts, from Bill to Jimmy to Hillary to Gore. They should all be locked up. When will we learn that all these nutty islamist morons should be nuked. After all, if they want to believe this made-up religion, let them practice it first hand in front of their made-up, pig loving god and prophet.

How is strictly enforcing visa laws in any way an abuse of anything especially vis a vis states that themselves strictly and prima facie discriminatorily do it themselves. Somebody should tell this backstabbing nut, Al Dhimmi Bin Gore, that he can’t compete with Dhimmi Carter for the worst potus & worst ex-potus award until he actually wins the white house. Which, with these quotes living forever on the internet, will never happen.

"Yes and it isn't like GWB regularly blows the saudi royal family and refuses to condemn them for their support of Bin Ladin. Also it is not like 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Sauid Arabia...not one from Iraq...so why aren't we there?"

I love how left-wing clowns like this one pretend to be all aggressive toward Saudi Arabia, as if they would actually support any action Bush might take against that state. Like Al Gore, they whine about extremely mild measures like revoking visas, yet somehow they'd support military action against Saudi Arabia.

According to them attacking Iraq, an open enemy of the U.S., was somehow unjustified, and all about oil. But attacking Saudi Arabia because of the actions of a few of its citizens would be just fine. If Bush did actually order some sort of military action against Saudi Arabia, what are the odds that people like this would applaud him for it? Or would they be screaming "no war for oil," denouncing Bush in the crazed manner they've become acustomed to, and doing everything possible to undermine the war effort, as they are with Iraq?

It really seems to be the most distinguishing characterestic - the name-calling, the cultist mentality, the blind lashing at the 'other side', it's a different part of the brain, an irrational part, that you see.

Let's look at one of the less bad posts, by 'DBF':

"Anonymous, you're an angry person aren't you?"

You're projecting. For you to take all the blind, rabid hatred in this thread expressed by the right and ignore it to say what you said shows an irrational set of rose-colored glasses.

"Just like your hero, Al Gore."

By the second sentence, the vitriolic sarcasm that you see so much from the right shows its ugly head - and you might say you can see some anger behind it.

"Wow, are all you leftists this angry? That must be terrible for you, but I guess it's good for the mental health profession."

Boggling lack of self-awareness you also often see.

"Tell me this - what if somehow the Dems were able to get Bush was out of the picture."

This is why say it's less bad - he at least TRIES to approach a rational question, which is a rare, positive thing from the right, even if he immediately falls off the trail into the land of irrationality.

"Let's say they miraculously gain political power (I know this is absurd but work with me here)?"

Hey, a cheap shot with vitriol again. Who would have guessed?

"What would they do to protect us from Islamic terrorism? Or does this particular threat even exist in your mind?"

An actual attempt at discource, good, even if it reflects the utter ignorance the right has for the most part of the left, built on propagandistic straw man caricatures.

"I'm hoping you're going to say something about how we should "apologize to the oppressed peoples from the ME for taking their oil", or other some such nonsense. You leftists really amuse me."

The attempt to feel right by being smug - a very weak thing to do.

You don't learn from your mistakes with unjustified smugness.

You know, the people of Saudi Arabia just *might* have a legitimate bone to pick with the US for its then-secret Nixon deal with the House of Saud to guarantee their corrupt regime security in exchange for access to oil, following the cutoff, which doomed the people of Saudi Arabia to repression - as if there had been some world power that had made a deal with King George III to guarantee his security against the upstart 'founding fathers' and doomed our revolution to overthrow tyranny.

And just maybe Iran has a legitimate beef for the CIA overthrowing their elected president in 1953, replacing him with the dictator/Shah for 25 years, all about the oil. You know, at some point, your sarcasm is misplaced.

It doesn't mean we just need to apologize - we hae legitimate self-interests, there are a lot of people at fault, but your six-year-old level of 'analysis' to throw away the topic with a bit of sarcasm is a joke.

Now, for your question - first, the democrats need spell out their specific plan for what they would do about as much as Bush had to spell out his plan for the 'war on terror' in 1999 - oh, that's right, he not only was completely disengenuous about his position, saying he opposed 'nation building' and then going on to do far more of it than Clinton, but he was actively dishonest about his plans to pursue war with Iraq and put the 'plan for a new american century' cabal into power.

But having said that, let's ask what the democrats would do a bit.

One, they would have strong national security as always: our largest foreign war was won by a democrat, let's remember. The nuclear bomb was developed and used by another democrat.

Bill Clinton took on the Sarajevo crisis with international cooperation and without a single American killed - not perfectly, but far better than the incompetent republican keystone cops run the war efforts they started.

The right could criticize Clinton for underfighting the battle with Osama - if they had not constantly undermined his authority to do so at every turn, criticizing nearly every effort he made (remember the 'wag the dog' sniping?)

Clinton, once he had proof in 2000 of Al Queda being behind the Cole bombinb, developed a war plan, and rather than begin the war for Bush to have to continue, he gae the war plan to the new administration. Sandy Berger told the new NSC people - Rice and Hadley - that Al Queda would be the #1 problem to deal with. The democrats would have launched the war plan. Bush shelved it, because it came from Clinton, and then spent the time to 9/11 doing basically nothing on terrorism.

The democrats would have been less likely to be so incomepetent as to let bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, and they would have finished the work in Afghanistan rather than introduce terrorism to Iraq.

More importantly, the democrats would make a lot fewer enimies - after 9/11, the world was with us based on our great history and in part Clinton's legacy - Bush has squandered all that and made the US many enemies. Not in the mindless right-wing definition where they assume that all enemies are deserving to be so, mocking as if it were saying we should just try to get along with Hitler, but bad policy enemies, where people who could be allies and should be, are screwed for no good reason.

A republican senator this week said that our situation with Iraq is the worst it has ever been. That's good policy?

The right is a cult today. Once, it was a more rational group; now it's not.

It's like watching the people who think drinking poison will take them to the comet for a ride. They're self destructive, and you realize they have to be stopped if they affect many others.

The democrats would actually uphold American principles - not use 'ends justify the means' logic to turn the US into the ultimate bully nation in the world, following the simplistic, evil logic of power alone.

Many times I see someone on the right write, I'm reminded of Jim Morrison's line - "his brain was squirming like a toad". You see it in the nearly pathological hatred of any left figures from Gore to Sheehan to Kennedy.

"You Gore-ons can try to spin it any way you want, but Gore DID falsely claim to have CREATED the internet."

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

"Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999...

Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and perhaps self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the I also invented the microphone technology that we now know as the Internet. To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the "invention" of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. Gore never used the word "invent," and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings — the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone's thinking up or implementing an idea...

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement."

""But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

You Gore-ons can try to spin it any way you want, but Gore DID falsely claim to have CREATED the internet. And funny, my thesaurus says a synonym for create is "invent"."

Idiot, I've had it up to my eyballs with the crap that you right wing drudge reading, dittohead sycophantic bs'ers spew out in the way of RNC talking points. For the record, dumbass - taking the initiative in creating the internet does not mean that he invented the internet. Just in case you want proof, (and i'll give you some more links like the love canal, love story, clinton's haircut, the clinton admin trashing the white house, etc - you know, the urban myths you republitards tell each other to make yourselves feel better).But I digress:

"If Bush did actually order some sort of military action against Saudi Arabia, what are the odds that people like this would applaud him for it?"

Hahahaha. ROFL. That would be like Bush taking military action against his own father. He is so spineless that he'll never come out against the Saudis and their implicit support of the fundamentalists in their country. Gore was talking about the treatment of Arabs in general after 9/11.

"The right is a cult today. Once, it was a more rational group; now it's not.It's like watching the people who think drinking poison will take them to the comet for a ride. They're self destructive, and you realize they have to be stopped if they affect many others."

It's an interesting time in the US when lies to start a war are patriotic and trying to stop a war is treason. Clears up the old high school history class question "Why would the Germans let their leaders committ such atrocities" for me in a big way. Thanks for letting me stop by here and see how the proto-fascists think.

You can't have a discussion on the real issue of right and wrong. You instead fall back to the only thing you understand, the issue of winning or losing the election.

How sad for you.

For us, first, we'll be right, and THEN, second, we'll win elections.

Without that order, we may as well let you win. But we're not you. We'll win and make the world a better place, while you win and simply serve your needy insecurity, confusing the election result with anything more.

It's about as meaningful as Hitler or Saddam winning an election. There's a lot more to the issue that just winning the election, and the fact you don't know that dooms you politically in the longer run, unless you end democracy.

Unfortunately, the natural state of affairs is not democracy - it's a power-based system. Democracy is an idealistic notion based on a theory of justice involving universal suffrage, using an artifical construct of 'the law' to overpower the advantages of guns, wealth, and all the rest.

Today's right is trying to slide back to the good old day, without even realizing it, as they worship the words of democracy - the symbols, like the flag - as empty symbols devoid of their real meaning.

Go read 1984 - and realize not everyone falls for it.

We've come damn close - we got the most votes, and really won the election in 2000 (from the accident of the Buchanan-friendly butterly ballot to the removal of legitimate black voters from the voter roles preventing the man who the people chose from getting the office), and we were within 60,000 Ohio voters of winning in 2004.

You sound like Bush with his 'bring it on'. They did. And I bet we will.

And I'll bet you won't, so there. 1994,1996,1998,2000,2002,2004 is quite a streak of winning control of both houses of Congress and one that will eventually have to break,but just not yet. I thought 2006 might have been the year for the Democrats to make significant gains but since the NSA issue came up, and the Democrats have had to dance to their paymaster's tune, the Republic appears to be safe and will remain under Republican governance. 2008 ? I don't know but the bench strength in the R party seems better that the D's. We may have to settle for a McCain rather than an Allen but we will still win IMHO.

The really worrisome thing for the Democrats to consider is that, except for JEC's 50.1% vote, the last Democrat to win the presidenency with a majority of the vote was LBJ, 42 years ago.

The repubs are so 'only winning matters' that they stoop to the worst corruption, they cheat in many ways, some of which are getting to be well known, they are trying to 'force the results' so much that the efforts will alienate voters.

Their only hope becomes to really, actually thwart democracy itself (by simply breaking the system overtly, or by effectively cheating, such as if they really do 'rig the new electronic voting machines').

They've had a great run of running based on the lies - having their cake and eating it too, such as talking the talk about deficit reduction while following Clinton's balanced budget from Reagan deficits with new deficits - but after 12 years of Reagan/Bush lies, followed by 8 of Clinton showing it can be done right, followed by 8 more of GWB showing that 'yes, it really is a systematic lie by the right', people eventually catch on.

The right knows that the only card it has left is the fear card - as Rove recently said in announcing the repub 2006 strategy. That's not a lot to base elections on.

The right's other advantage is the corrupt money it takes, and the media control it's obtained in part from that money, but in a real democracy that only goes so far, too.

I agree with you that the democrats should worry about the fact that they're often a hard sell - look no further than the brilliant, trained-for-decades, worldy war hero pulitzer prize-winning wealthy family attractive John Kennedy and the 'almost dumped by Eisenhower for corruption', 'Tricky Dick', far less attractive, one-note Nixon had a virtual tie in their election. The American public does like its republicans.

But the right has gone well down the road now to screwing the American people and reckoning is set up to happen. Benjamin Franklin spent years trying to keep the US colonies under Britain. He changed his mind.

The right is lacking in knowing and being willing or able to represent the interests of the American people generally. They're trying to rule arrogantly and putting their own interests first.

It's in the nation's interest to see that and reject them.

We'll see in 2006 and 2008.

The democrats have an uphill battle to overcome the well-funded, evermore sophisticated propaganda of the right. It's not easy, as the very honest Gore being called a liar, the very heroic veteran Kerry being called a faker of wounds, being believed by so many dupes proved. But we'll see. They thought Truman would lose, too.

"I missed this part: "For us, first, we'll be right, and THEN, second, we'll win elections. Without that order, we may as well let you win."

LOL, so far this strategy has been working to perfection. When you get right, let us know."

You obviously missed this part of my post, too:

"You can't have a discussion on the real issue of right and wrong. You instead fall back to the only thing you understand, the issue of winning or losing the election."

The democrats are doing ok over the longer term.

You know, take away the historical accident of a racist south switching sides in the republicans' "Southern Strategy" after the democrats led the country to pass the civil rights bill, and you would not be winning.

You must be very proud to have your wins broadly rest on exploiting racism.

The republican excesses of the late 19th century led to a period of reform in the early 20th century. The republican follies of the 1920s led to a depression and the democrats gaining power for decades.

And I see no reason not to expect the utter failures of the current republicans - becoming visible right on schedule - not to run the risk to repubs of the American people reacting similary in coming years.

That's why the repubs are anti-democracy, ultimately.

And while it's polite to say it's just the evil Rovian leaders and not the typical voters, sorry, but too many repubs attack the truth in perputating lies such as about Gore (see this thread), too many attack the integrity of the process to win elections (see the head in the sand denial of the facts of the 2000 election theft) for them to escape the accusation.

This article is about is the complete disintegration of the psyche of Al Gore. Former Vice President Gore was never, to my mind, the sharpest knife in the drawer, what with his outlandish claims of inventing the internet and whatnot. But I never ever imagined that he would be speaking words that are seditious and traitorous and in my view these words in this place are precisely all of that!

Really, Tipper, bring him home, get him medicated and tuck him safely away until he's making some SENSE!

"This article is about is the complete disintegration of the psyche of Al Gore."

And it's garbage and lies on that issue.

"Former Vice President Gore was never, to my mind, the sharpest knife in the drawer, what with his outlandish claims of inventing the internet and whatnot."

Right, just because the 'father of the internet' gives him credit for having the vision as a politician to support the creation of the internet, YOU don't think he's a shark knife.

You have nothing to support yor view but the parroting of lies.

Let's compare your lack of argument with what Vince Cerf wrote:

"Al Gore and the Internet

By Robert Kahn and Vinton CerfAl Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time."

"But I never ever imagined that he would be speaking words that are seditious and traitorous and in my view these words in this place are precisely all of that!"

Oh, more of YOUR views, just as credible as the last lie you fell for.

I guess a German saying the holocaust was happening and was wrong would be a traitor to Germany, in your view too? You need to learn the difference between the support of truth, of a nation's real interests, and the support of any given corrupt leader who is doing wrong.

This 'telling the truth when it's bad about America' logic of the right is a dangerous, foolhardy argument - the nation is strong because freedom of speech helps the bad get recognized and fixed, while the corrupt cover it up.

I should say, the corrupt and their dupes.

"Really, Tipper, bring him home, get him medicated and tuck him safely away until he's making some SENSE!"

And hey, more vitriolic sarcasm frokm the right, hate-filled nonsense.

"You know, take away the historical accident of a racist south switching sides in the republicans' "Southern Strategy" after the democrats led the country to pass the civil rights bill, and you would not be winning."

This weird argument has always been one of my pet peeves. As a southerner of some years, I lived those days and trust me, it wasn't the Republican Party holding the 'coloreds' down, it was the D's. Democrats were the ones who filibustered civil rights and anti-lynching laws for decades, including one 'gentleman' who still sits as a Democrat in the US Senate to this very day.

Besides which, this is 2006. The CRA passed 42 years ago! If you think that the recent success of the Republican party is due to the votes of 80+ year old kluxers there is little change of you listening to reason.

Put out an agenda that the American people will support and scrum up some votes. You can't win if you don't play, or as Reagan used to say when we conservatives complained about some compromise or other that he made: "You can't do good if you can't get elected".

"This weird argument has always been one of my pet peeves. As a southerner of some years, I lived those days and trust me, it wasn't the Republican Party holding the 'coloreds' down, it was the D's. Democrats were the ones who filibustered civil rights and anti-lynching laws for decades, including one 'gentleman' who still sits as a Democrat in the US Senate to this very day."

Overall, you're right - we agree, but you may not recognize the implications.

What I'm saying is that the racists of the south then who helped the democrats have power are the same people who became, under the Southern Strategy designed by Kevin Phillips, Nixon's 1968 campaign manager and *former* republican after seeing the fruits of his work in the form of Bushes, the racists of the south who switched to the republican party and helped them win elections.

If you want to argue that the democrats benefitted from the racist south before 1968, I'll agree - and add that as of 1968, the republicans are now the beneficiary.

"Besides which, this is 2006. The CRA passed 42 years ago! If you think that the recent success of the Republican party is due to the votes of 80+ year old kluxers there is little change of you listening to reason."

And you're right here, too: after (non-southern) democrats led the nation to move past racism a century after the civil war (and themselves led by the civil rights movement and the Warren Court that today's right hates), the nation has changed such that anti-racism is broadly agreed with across party lines. The southern strategy was a one-time shift of the racist south to the republican party; following that, the right has only had to defend the gain, not perpetuate the same ideology that got it for them at the time.

Power tends to increase, until 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' and there's a revolt (if democracy exists to let the people revolt). Had Nixon lost the very close 1968 election, which he would have without the 'Southern Strategy', he would not have been in position to strengthen the republican party to lead to future victories. The same Nixon who made the career of George H.W. Bush with appointments to CIA director and UN Ambassador, paving the way for him as VP and then president; the same Nixon whose campaign 'dirty tricks' group trained Lee Atwater who helped Reagan and Bush win, who trained Karl Rove; the same Nixon who recruited a liar to smear John Kerry, the same liar who continued with the 'Swift Boat' lies in the 2004 election.

No, the long power hold of democrats since 1932 (except 'beware the Military-Industrial complex', 'every rocket is stealing from the mouths of the hungry' Eisenhower) would have continued had Humphrey beat Nixon.

The *foundation* of the rise of the right rests on that racism.

"Put out an agenda that the American people will support and scrum up some votes."

Now for one of my pet peeves: the lie that you have anything but a horrible 'agenda', as measured by votes. Coca Cola is an unhealthy beverage choice that costs a lot more than a glass of healthy water, yet it's ubiquitous, so I guess by your logic it's better than water. Or just *maybe* Americans drink too much Coca Cola as a result of the unfortunate fact that marketing works, and the money to be made on Coke overwhelms the better decision for people to drink less Coke and more water, as diabetes becomes epidemic.

Analogously, winning an election does not prove the merit of the agenda, sadly - especially when the one side has the corrupt donations and the mechanics of the media 'noise machine' to put forth the lies.

The lies about Gore in this thread - debunked - are good proof that the lies sometimes win, as they did with his enemies lying about him.

And it's further reflection of your inability to separate winning the election from the moral discussion of good policy.

"You can't win if you don't play, or as Reagan used to say when we conservatives complained about some compromise or other that he made: "You can't do good if you can't get elected"."

That's true *to a point*. The problem is, repubs don't know where to draw the line. In the same way that they'll use an argument for torture in a scenario where the threat is the imminent detonation of a nuke in a city, but then run with the support for torture in that case to use it far more casually even on mostly innocent groups of people (and cover it up and so on), the repubs take the very legitimate compromises needed to win elections to do good, and run with it to the extremes such as in the 2000 election when they flew republican staffers from Washington D.C. to Florida to be a mob that threatened and intimidated the vote counters into not counting the votes.

Ends justify the means logic taken to the extreme as repubs do so much.

Ah, but what about the rights of all the OFW in Saudi Arabia? My Filippino cousins were forced to throw out their rosaries when they went there to work as nurses...As for being able to go to Mass or even hold bible study, forget it...they'd be jailed...

Yeah, that's it: Diebold. As long as Diebold makes voting machines, Dems will never win.How convenient an excuse for the Dems' electoral failures. "We was robbed!" "Electronically"!!!!

NEVER MIND that Democrat-run states use Diebold, and continue to use them. Why IZZAT, anyway?

(and yes, verification systems are useful. But we have all seen the mischief that (mainly) Dems have made, manipulating/losing/stuffing paper ballots.)

As for Gore and the Internet:

Roget's Thesaurus gives "create" as the FIRST listed synonym for "invent". It gives as the first synonyms for "create" as "originate, make, cause". If you have a SCINTILLA of hard evidence---not the vague endorsements of a couple of Gore supporters---- that Gore originated, made or caused the Interenet, be sure to post it. What legislation has his name on it, what committee did he head thatproposed and got passed legislation etc.

And isn't it telling that you drones on the one hand deny that Gore didn't mean what he SAID, and on the other cite some guys who praise Gore for his "work" (what might that be, again, given that Darpanet and Arpanet pre-date Gore's days in the House and Senate) in developing the Internet.

Here's a book that will correct your misinformation:

Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet Katie Hafner, Matthew Lyon

Go find the chapter, or the paragraph, that deals with Al Gore's "work" in developing the internet.

"Ah, but what about the rights of all the OFW in Saudi Arabia? My Filippino cousins were forced to throw out their rosaries when they went there to work as nurses...As for being able to go to Mass or even hold bible study, forget it...they'd be jailed..."

Excellent points, and they illustrate why the left is the 'right' position.

The left supports freedom of religion, respect for individual rights, it's against the state enforcing the 'majority' religion too far.

The left opposes the practices you describe in Saudi Arabia, while the right is responsible for Nixon making the deal to guarantee the regime's power in exchange for oil. The left would like to see freedom there, too.

The right on the other hand, in its pursuit of power for their own benefit, learned to use the religious right in this country for elections by not only pandering to them, but manipulating them into thinking they're persecuted.

(The same old trick of Nazis convincing German Jews 'persecuted' them. It's not human nature to oppress people for no reason, but it is human nature to oppress out of a false feeling of threat, just as so many Americans turn a blind eye to the imprisonment and torture of innocent Muslims to protect themselves, supposedly, from another 9/11).

The right is willing to 'go too far' to give special treatment to the dominant religion here just as the government described above does - if not to the same degree, it's the same principle.

The left stands for real freedom for all, the right for its own power.

The thing is, the religious right in the US doesn't realize they're serving an evil master, being used for their votes; they'll benefit in the short term, but eventually they'll be tossed aside and suffer.

The left offers them a guarantee of freedom for their rosary, for their sunday school, even their right to have their own religious schools. The right offers them the right to use public resources for private religious purposes in the short term, but at the price of the principle of religious freedom.

"And isn't it telling that you drones on the one hand deny that Gore didn't mean what he SAID, and on the other cite some guys who praise Gore for his "work" (what might that be, again, given that Darpanet and Arpanet pre-date Gore's days in the House and Senate) in developing the Internet"

You're right drool cup. Al Gore really did think he was going to put one over on the American people! He really thought he could claim credit for INVENTING the internet! And that he was the inspiration for Love Story! That he discovered Love Canal! Oh...and that the Clinton administration trashed the White House! And that Clinton's $400 haircut caused delays at LAX!

Craig, you are obviously a much faster typist than me or you have alot more time on your hands. I'm not inclined to type a rebuttal to each and every point of your screed (although...let me reread it quickly.. yes, I could rebut them all since no actual defensible points are made but rather they are all either factually inaccurate revisionist history, learned insteqad of lived, or amount to little more than an unprovable 'so's your mother'.) but I will contest your bizarre notion that losing elections is good for your cause and the cause of western liberal values.

Democracy is a system of government based on persuasion rather than force. The better idea is the one that can persuade more of your fellow citizens to support you to represent them, with their votes and with their dollars. The idea that you have the RIGHT answer and that your fellow citizens are merely dupes or worse, smacks of the worst kind of elitism. The people of America are citizens not subjects. Their opinions, expressed through their freely elected representives are what is right, not metaphysically and uncontestable but rather as a practical governing measure. The citizens can make a mistake as I judge it, but the answer is not to ridicule them but to redouble and retool your arguments and in the end to accept defeat if that is what happens without excessive rancor.

That being said. I'll take half a loaf, win the election and do the good that I can persuade my fellow citizens to support, rather than have none and cry in the wilderness in my purity of spirit as I judge you to be doing. Take comfort then in the inevitablity of you triumph do to historical forces while we take comfort in what we can do now.

"If you have a SCINTILLA of hard evidence---not the vague endorsements of a couple of Gore supporters---- that Gore originated, made or caused the Interenet, be sure to post it."

I've already posted many pointers to this info, but one article mentions an answer from your own source you refer us to, Katie Hafner:

"Meanwhile, Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet’s origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore “helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.”"

Or let's see what she had to say in the Washington Post:

"Vinton G. Cerf, a senior vice president at MCI Worldcom and the person most often called "the father of the Internet" for his part in designing the network's common computer language, said in an e-mail interview yesterday, "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator."

The co-author of a history of the online world, "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet," agreed. Katie Hafner said people have been haggling over the true beginnings of the network for decades. "As we all know, there are many paternity claims on the Internet. That's a given, because it's so successful. But there are so many people who did at least one pivotal thing in either creating the network, or encouraging the use of the network, or bringing the network to the public -- and Gore was one of those people.""

But you ask for facts - while you offer only an absence of them, and lies.

Here are some, from Cerf, who would know:

"As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world."

"That being said. I'll take half a loaf, win the election and do the good that I can persuade my fellow citizens to support..."

I think what craig is trying to get through to you is that while the Democrats' policies are more pragmatically as well as intellectually feasible for the greater majority of the people in this country, the Republicans have mastered the art of slick, dirty, and hence effective political campaing. Effective, from the standpoint that they have been able to manipulate a greater number of people through both legal and illegal means in a manner analogous to a giant corporate PR campaign. Truth be damned, we're hearing about Al Gore looking bad in earth tones, that he's not a people person, that he claimed he invented the internet. McCain fathered an illegitmate black child, remember? Then there's this little inconvenient , expensive, and stupid war that you bushbots find it impossible to critique on the grounds that somehow raising a protest to such an action is unpatriotic or damaging to the morale of our troops. Your party is a cult. You convince Christians that they're being persecuted, we get to hear about a missing white girl in Aruba when there is a war, and several Republican scandals going on. The media sounds pretty administration/conservative friendly to me these days.Where are all the reports in the MSM or Faux News for that matter detailing the mass movements of WMDs to Syria?

People will eventually tire of this disingenuous politicking and the practice on the "right" of pandering to peoples' basest fears in order to get elected.

Craig, you're laboring under a misconception. You begin from the assumptions that Republicans are racist, that Republicans are liars, that Republicans are election-focused at the expense of principle - and your misconception is that your postulates are correct.

I do not assume that I understand the motives of the Left, but rather try to evaluate them by their words and actions; I do not laugh at Gore's malapropisms, but rather try to evaluate him by (the intent of, to the extent that I can reasonably figure it out) his words and actions; I do not begin from the assumption that people of the Left are "anti-freedom" but rather am critical of the way in which they believe freedom can best be advanced and maintained. Can you say anything similar about your attitudes toward my side? Because, as I try to evaluate you based on your words, it doesn't look that way.

Instead, what I see is this:

"It's about as meaningful as Hitler or Saddam winning an election. There's a lot more to the issue that [sic] just winning the election, and the fact you don't know that dooms you politically in the longer run, unless you end democracy."

[...]

"The right is lacking in knowing and being willing or able to represent the interests of the American people generally. They're trying to rule arrogantly and putting their own interests first."

[...]

"You must be very proud to have your wins broadly rest on exploiting racism."

"Vitriolic sarcasm," "hate-filled nonsense," as opposed to your measured cadences comparing the results of a historically close election, decided in the electoral college as the Constitution sets out and contested still only by a few with an axe to grind, to an election of "Saddam or Hitler," the party winning it being "anti-democracy" and its wins over the past forty years being "broadly rest[ing] on exploiting racism." Well done.

You use more syllables to call names than some posters here, but calling names is in fact what you're doing.

The closeness of the 2004 election demonstrates that if Democrats had been able to field a platform believable and workable on its face, the American people might've been willing to switch horses. Your contention, reading between your many lines, that the Democratic party "knows what's good for us" and Americans have simply been either cowed or flummoxed by the Republicans, is just another "What's wrong with Kansas?"; but I'll give you this: in contrast to some commenters on the Left who disingenuously take similar positions but are clearly out to "Get Bush!" at any cost, I don't think you're actually being disingenuous. I think you believe what you say; but you stop a little short of understanding that your "vitriol" is just as "hate-filled," only more lyrical, shall we say, than some.

Anonymous at 6:02 and some, is that you, Cobra? If so, long time no talk to. Drop me a line. (I doubt that you are, since Cobra tends to be more polite than that post, but the citations are suggestive.)

Tob, don't talk about democracy. I live in a country where it still exists.You don't. Your nation's excuse for an electoral system is laughable, and what has been done since 2000 to fix the glaring errors? Not a goddamned thing.

Your purity of spirit? What's that, about 200 proof? You should cut back on the ethanol "do" to the fact that it's another thing that will make you go blind.

Here's another Gore lie: "I have ridden the mighty moon worm!" Why not spend an afternoon refuting that one too? He DID say it after all. I don't know how I could possibly defend him on that one.

Fine Craig, whatever. I think that you miss my point that what is good policy is not up to you to decide other than as a personal opinion as valuable as anyone elses. The proof of the quality of your ideas lies is your ability to persuade others as to their correctness, both morally and as an act of efficiency. The Republicans have been doing a better job of this since Truman retired and while the current bunch is less pure conservative than I would like, they are a lot better at persuasion that the mid-70's goalong guys they replace. The current crop of Democrats is hopeless though. Any competent party could make more of a contest than Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy etc. WAKE UP AND VOTE FOR US YOU IGNORANT DUPES!!! does not make a congenial or effective campaign argument. ;-)

I'm going to go eat and I might check back later to see if I devolved into even more of a bush-bot during the interval.

"Craig, you're laboring under a misconception. You begin from the assumptions that Republicans are racist, that Republicans are liars, that Republicans are election-focused at the expense of principle - and your misconception is that your postulates are correct."

Thanks for letting me know you thought I have these misconceptions, but I don't. Let me clarify for you how you have the misconceptions here.

I don't think "republicans are racists".

I think that there was an especially strong presence of racists in the south in the 1960's - far from universal, and far from republican, indeed as I stated the democrats dominated early in that period.

However, the republicans, led by Kevin Phillips' strategy (and again, he's since renounced the republican party and written some good books, some against Bush), exploited the racism that existed to gain power (similar to the way they are now exploiting the religious right for the same purpose).

When LBJ signed the civil rights bill, he famously commented that he had just given away the south to the republicans for at least a generation (and that meant giving away the White House, too, given electoral math).

That's a far cry from the view you claim I have.

As for republicans being focused on winning elections at the expense of principle, I'll clarify that I don't think that's universally true, either; but I do think that the republican leadership has that trait far more than their opposition, and that more people on the right have it than on the left (see Toby's responses for an example of that view, where he repeatedly measures all value of positions by their role in winning elections).

"I do not assume that I understand the motives of the Left, but rather try to evaluate them by their words and actions; I do not laugh at Gore's malapropisms, but rather try to evaluate him by (the intent of, to the extent that I can reasonably figure it out) his words and actions; I do not begin from the assumption that people of the Left are "anti-freedom" but rather am critical of the way in which they believe freedom can best be advanced and maintained. Can you say anything similar about your attitudes toward my side? Because, as I try to evaluate you based on your words, it doesn't look that way."

I commend you for being so different from a very large number of the people on the right, and yes, I can say similar things about how I view the other sides (I don't say 'your side', because I don't know what your side is, other than not 'my side', and apparently republican).

"Instead, what I see is this:

(Examples deleted for brevity)

You use more syllables to call names than some posters here, but calling names is in fact what you're doing."

You commit an error I see from time to time, separating the crticism from the merits of the criticism. Every example you listed has solid support for being said; this is different from 'name calling' where the attack is baseless.

When someone posts that Gore is a liar because he claimed to invent the internet, and I say that they are parroting a lie, it's an accurate criticism.

Had they just said they don't support Gore and I said 'then you must be a liar', then I'd be name-calling, posting a baseless attack. But I did not.

Discussions can sometimes devolve to that level, when the merits are removed. Imagine a thief and a non-thief as the non-thief confronts the thief:

Non-thief: You stole that.Thief: You stole that.Non-thief: No, YOU stole that, and I did not. You are wrong to steal.Thief: No, YOU are wrong to steal.Non-thief: Look, you can't simply hide your wrong-doing by saying the same things I say to you. You did wrong, and I'm right to say so.Thief: You are calling me a name, and I'm calling you one: same thing.

See what I mean - the discussion becomes tedious when the words are separated from the truth underlying them. You are superficicially equating all criticism - the justified and the unjustified.

There should be room in discussion for calling a thief a thief. You are not allowing for any such room, by equating unequal things.

"The closeness of the 2004 election demonstrates that if Democrats had been able to field a platform believable and workable on its face, the American people might've been willing to switch horses. Your contention, reading between your many lines, that the Democratic party "knows what's good for us" and Americans have simply been either cowed or flummoxed by the Republicans, is just another "What's wrong with Kansas?"; but I'll give you this: in contrast to some commenters on the Left who disingenuously take similar positions but are clearly out to "Get Bush!" at any cost, I don't think you're actually being disingenuous. I think you believe what you say; but you stop a little short of understanding that your "vitriol" is just as "hate-filled," only more lyrical, shall we say, than some."

You can read the tea leaves in many ways, from 'proving' they reflected the people's wisdom to 'proving' the people are fools to 'proving' the election was stolen since people who could never honestly get elected won, and more.

Of course, none of those are proof, and nothing you posted was, either.

It's just an unsupported inference consistent with your views, that the eelction results 'prove' the people support the Bush platform. A real discussion could easily offer a challenge to that inference.

I'll defer that for now.

Whatever else my post is, it's not, as you claim, 'hate-filled', another of your unfortunate attempts to say the same thing I said, to equate unequal things. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to equate, say, bigotry based on race with 'bigotry against bigots'; there is no hate in my post, there is criticism of wrong.

It's a larger topic to split the hair on the difference, but you see it in the difference between the sort of unthinking acceptance of lies critical of liberals by the right, in contrast to the rational criticisms of the right by the left. 'Gore is a liar!' is the former; and 'Bush is a liar' with solid examples to prove it is the latter. I see many on the right use 'feelings' to determine their opinions beyond the way feelings make sense to use. This is the type of thing you see with propaganda.

Now, I'm not saying that this is completely a right-left issue; there are examples on the opposite sides, too. But the examples in this thread are on the sides I said, and the right is more prone to this irrationality.

Count the errors in the thread, and post the resuls, for an empirical test.

Have you not noticed, for example the several thorough, clear, rational posts from the left debunking the 'invented the internet' lie, and the contrasting repitions, unsupported, of the lie from the right?

"Craig, you're laboring under a misconception. You begin from the assumptions that Republicans are racist, that Republicans are liars, that Republicans are election-focused at the expense of principle - and your misconception is that your postulates are correct."

Thanks for letting me know you thought I have these misconceptions, but I don't. Let me clarify for you how you have the misconceptions here.

I don't think "republicans are racists".

I think that there was an especially strong presence of racists in the south in the 1960's - far from universal, and far from republican, indeed as I stated the democrats dominated early in that period.

However, the republicans, led by Kevin Phillips' strategy (and again, he's since renounced the republican party and written some good books, some against Bush), exploited the racism that existed to gain power (similar to the way they are now exploiting the religious right for the same purpose).

When LBJ signed the civil rights bill, he famously commented that he had just given away the south to the republicans for at least a generation (and that meant giving away the White House, too, given electoral math).

That's a far cry from the view you claim I have.

As for republicans being focused on winning elections at the expense of principle, I'll clarify that I don't think that's universally true, either; but I do think that the republican leadership has that trait far more than their opposition, and that more people on the right have it than on the left (see Toby's responses for an example of that view, where he repeatedly measures all value of positions by their role in winning elections).

"I do not assume that I understand the motives of the Left, but rather try to evaluate them by their words and actions; I do not laugh at Gore's malapropisms, but rather try to evaluate him by (the intent of, to the extent that I can reasonably figure it out) his words and actions; I do not begin from the assumption that people of the Left are "anti-freedom" but rather am critical of the way in which they believe freedom can best be advanced and maintained. Can you say anything similar about your attitudes toward my side? Because, as I try to evaluate you based on your words, it doesn't look that way."

I commend you for being so different from a very large number of the people on the right, and yes, I can say similar things about how I view the other sides (I don't say 'your side', because I don't know what your side is, other than not 'my side', and apparently republican).

"Instead, what I see is this:

(Examples deleted for brevity)

You use more syllables to call names than some posters here, but calling names is in fact what you're doing."

You commit an error I see from time to time, separating the crticism from the merits of the criticism. Every example you listed has solid support for being said; this is different from 'name calling' where the attack is baseless.

When someone posts that Gore is a liar because he claimed to invent the internet, and I say that they are parroting a lie, it's an accurate criticism.

Had they just said they don't support Gore and I said 'then you must be a liar', then I'd be name-calling, posting a baseless attack. But I did not.

Discussions can sometimes devolve to that level, when the merits are removed. Imagine a thief and a non-thief as the non-thief confronts the thief:

Non-thief: You stole that.Thief: You stole that.Non-thief: No, YOU stole that, and I did not. You are wrong to steal.Thief: No, YOU are wrong to steal.Non-thief: Look, you can't simply hide your wrong-doing by saying the same things I say to you. You did wrong, and I'm right to say so.Thief: You are calling me a name, and I'm calling you one: same thing.

See what I mean - the discussion becomes tedious when the words are separated from the truth underlying them. You are superficicially equating all criticism - the justified and the unjustified.

There should be room in discussion for calling a thief a thief. You are not allowing for any such room, by equating unequal things.

"The closeness of the 2004 election demonstrates that if Democrats had been able to field a platform believable and workable on its face, the American people might've been willing to switch horses. Your contention, reading between your many lines, that the Democratic party "knows what's good for us" and Americans have simply been either cowed or flummoxed by the Republicans, is just another "What's wrong with Kansas?"; but I'll give you this: in contrast to some commenters on the Left who disingenuously take similar positions but are clearly out to "Get Bush!" at any cost, I don't think you're actually being disingenuous. I think you believe what you say; but you stop a little short of understanding that your "vitriol" is just as "hate-filled," only more lyrical, shall we say, than some."

You can read the tea leaves in many ways, from 'proving' they reflected the people's wisdom to 'proving' the people are fools to 'proving' the election was stolen since people who could never honestly get elected won, and more.

Of course, none of those are proof, and nothing you posted was, either.

It's just an unsupported inference consistent with your views, that the eelction results 'prove' the people support the Bush platform. A real discussion could easily offer a challenge to that inference.

I'll defer that for now.

Whatever else my post is, it's not, as you claim, 'hate-filled', another of your unfortunate attempts to say the same thing I said, to equate unequal things. It's a cheap rhetorical trick to equate, say, bigotry based on race with 'bigotry against bigots'; there is no hate in my post, there is criticism of wrong.

It's a larger topic to split the hair on the difference, but you see it in the difference between the sort of unthinking acceptance of lies critical of liberals by the right, in contrast to the rational criticisms of the right by the left. 'Gore is a liar!' is the former; and 'Bush is a liar' with solid examples to prove it is the latter. I see many on the right use 'feelings' to determine their opinions beyond the way feelings make sense to use. This is the type of thing you see with propaganda.

Now, I'm not saying that this is completely a right-left issue; there are examples on the opposite sides, too. But the examples in this thread are on the sides I said, and the right is more prone to this irrationality.

Count the errors in the thread, and post the resuls, for an empirical test.

Have you not noticed, for example the several thorough, clear, rational posts from the left debunking the 'invented the internet' lie, and the contrasting repitions, unsupported, of the lie from the right?

This is why 'good faith' is needed for the discussion. If you are just out to 'win' the point for your side you can obstruct the discussion by refusing to recognize the inconvenient facts.

Both sides need to be willing to put the truth ahead of 'winning' a point.

Craig, you seem to be engaging in all of the tactics you decry in your ideological opponents. So long as you defend your "right" to insult anyone you disagree with simply because you think you are residing on the moral high ground and they are not, you're not engaging in a discussion.

You're doing exactly what those obnoxious street preachers I couldn't stand in Beaufort did: standing there and shouting everyone else down by sheer word count.

When LBJ signed the civil rights bill, he famously commented that he had just given away the south to the republicans for at least a generation (and that meant giving away the White House, too, given electoral math).

He can say whatever he wanted Craig.

The fact of the matter is that a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act and IT WOULD NEVER HAVE PASSED WITHOUT THEIR SUPPORT.

And both LBJ and Kennedy wiretapped the hell out of MLK Jr.

Explain that one if you can. Those are both factoids you won't hear the mainstream media talk about because it upsets their preconceived notions.

Y'all just love to throw around biased garbage about Republicans, but facts (like the ones I just quoted) never figure prominently.

Just predjudice, "I think Republicans are more than way..." with no supporting evidence.

But then who needs evidence? That's the whole point of predjudice, isn't it?

"Fine Craig, whatever. I think that you miss my point that what is good policy is not up to you to decide other than as a personal opinion as valuable as anyone elses."

What a wrongheaded comment, though, as if Thomas Jefferson's view of a new nation was just his opinion and no better than a random guy at the local pub - it's all just one person's opinion. No, it's not.

It's not scientifically provable that one is better than the other, but it's nonsense to pretend that, say, FDR and Stalin had equivalentally good policies just because each had their own views.

Holding up some sort of scientific measure for non-scientific issues is a waste of time. Saying it's 'just an opinion' prevents the helpful discussion of what is better by reviewing each others' reasons.

And you go on to another fallacy:

"The proof of the quality of your ideas lies is your ability to persuade others as to their correctness, both morally and as an act of efficiency."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Were Jesus' ideas' quality low when he had far fewer followers than the Pharisees? Was Galileo wrong when his ideas were not widely accepted? Is Britney Spears' music 'better' than Chopin's if she sells more CD's?

That's nonsensical.

Now, the correlation is greater than zero - all else being equal, ideas more widely accepted tend to be 'better' than ones less widely accepted, but it's nothing more than a bit of correlation, and *cannot* be used to 'prove' any specific position is better, that has to be done on merits.It's a weak - and wrong - argument to try to claim that your position is right simply because it wins an election.

What that does say is that it's a good idea to let the majority decide issues because minorities are even less likely to get a good answer for society on average.

The problem this causes with a 'tyranny of the majority' is buffered by the constitutional concept, requiring super-majorities to override protections of universal rights (or a sympathetic Supreme Court).

"The Republicans have been doing a better job of this since Truman retired and while the current bunch is less pure conservative than I would like, they are a lot better at persuasion that the mid-70's goalong guys they replace. The current crop of Democrats is hopeless though. Any competent party could make more of a contest than Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy etc. WAKE UP AND VOTE FOR US YOU IGNORANT DUPES!!! does not make a congenial or effective campaign argument. ;-)""

It's pretty hard not to scoff at anyone on the right raising any issue with 'congeniality' if it's not prefaced with the admission that the right has the vast majority of blame in this area.

As for the rest, the argument about 'post-Truman' is IMO lazy and wrong - you would need to make it an actual argument and not just an assertion for your reasons to get a response.

As for current democrats, there's room for improvement, but the right hardly generally approaches the issues with anything less than a cult-like worshipping at the altar of right-wing ideology. They tend to get people near them wet with contemtuous spit when they say the names of Kennedy or Howard Dean. It's just irrational, far beyond any substantive disagreement. While Bush can provoke similar reactions, most of the time, it's for much more reason. I know, the right is widely unwilling to distinguish between the chanting of Chappaquiddick at Kennedy on the one hand, and the fury with a Bush lying about the wiretapping by the other side. Because both are angry, they must be equally meritorious.

Wrong.

The main question is whether the right wing can see how it's being used, see what the 'real agenda' of the republican party today is.

Ask Americans if the budget should be balanced or nearly so. The vast majority across both parties will say that unless there's a very good reason, at least, they are in favor of that.

And yet the republicans are able to get the credit for being the 'fiscally conservative', budget balancing party, while the facts show the opposite - and yet, the right is unable to deal with the facts, to say "gee, the democrats really are the party who balances the budget better in modern times" - and their inability is a symptom of cult mentality. It's like the person in love who is the last to realize the flaws of the object of their affection. It's an irrational approach.

With modern advertising techniques, the right is duped and seduced into supporting people who are not serving their interests, but merely getting their votes.

I saw a right wing site today with an article *praising* Cheney over his shooting a man, tongue in cheek referring to his 'big balls', pretending it was intentional and worshipping at his feet because it was a sign of his power. While intended as humor, it did reflect the sort of worship of power the right (and the 1930's Germans) are so vulnerable to, a sort of Stockholm syndrome - as Bill Clinton put it, "The American people prefer a president who is strong and wrong than weak and right".

This is where you get the image which the left has mocked as 'Commander Codpiece' from with Bush strutting and posturing to his power-worshipping minions - it's a carefully designed PR campaign far, far from the idealistic freedom for society to make reasoned decision envisioned by Thomas Paine.

Face it - the ideas of Ted Kennedy are not even heard by the right. The last thing they heard him say is probably from 1969. They make him a caricature and hate him, like good little cultists, not really weighing his arguments. It's a tragedy for our society, but it's possible that this terrible government will actually get the public to get more informed and learn to protect themselves from the deceit. Maybe.

I considered one of your statements on the drive home, to wit: "Your comment that you 'could' rebut my point and such is pathetic. No, you can't, and it's an attack on the discussion for you to try to 'win' with the absence of any argument."

I have to admit that I was wrong here and you were correct to call me on it. Its not fair to reference arguments not made and I can only beg pardon. What I really meant was something along these lines:

Craig, you post points like they were coming out of a firehose and while I believe that I can refute them all I lack the time or the inclination to address each one. I do believe that they all misstatements of historical fact or colourable interpretations of actual facts or just flat out projection. Pick your favorite and I'll give you my .02. ;-)

From reading your last post directed to me it appears that we are at cross purposes. I never said that popularity determines right or that our ideas are RIGHT because we are winning, I said that our arguments are BETTER because we are winning. Because it is so easy to believe in the rightness of one's own beliefs and the benighted ignorance of others, after all who would hold a belief that they knew to be wrong, I don't like to argue right and wrong but instead argue process, ie representative democracy, and efficacy. In other words, I want the system to work 'Good Enough'. And that basis, I think things have never been better, at least in my lifetime and the governing party should be rewarded with more opportunity to govern. Apparently, the free citizen's of this country agree with me. That will change sooner or later but I see no real evidence that it will change in 2006 or 2008.

"t's pretty hard not to scoff at anyone on the right raising any issue with 'congeniality' if it's not prefaced with the admission that the right has the vast majority of blame in this area."

I've been nothing but congenial on this thread and its unfair for you to suggest otherwise, or that I should make statements that I don't believe in or apologize for the statements of others. Don't vent on me buddy.

"As for the rest, the argument about 'post-Truman' is IMO lazy and wrong - you would need to make it an actual argument and not just an assertion for your reasons to get a response."

What do you want here? The statement stands for it self. Since Truman, the Republicans have made a better argument for governance at the presidential level than the D's. 9 terms R vs 5 terms D. Since 1994 the congresspeople have made it 6 terms vs 0 in both houses. Somebody's most be making a better argument for those results.

Round and round and round we go. You did notice that I wasn't commenting on any of the merits of your arguments - good on you. Such was my intent. But I find it hard to believe that throwing "Saddam and Hitler" into an argument about the 2000 election and then defending the rhetorical device as a Thief/Non-Thief exchange passes for anything but either self-delusion (which I'm still going to give you the benefit of the doubt on) or disingenuousness.

You say,

"With modern advertising techniques, the right is duped and seduced into supporting people who are not serving their interests, but merely getting their votes."

...and it's for you to decide that the Right is "not serving their interests" because of your... I'm not going to say it; you fill in the blank, if you wish. As Toby keeps pointing out, and as you keep denying in unbelievable terms, you are speaking as if you know what's right for the American people, and you may not make that call for me. Clearly, you are not making that call for me, or for the rest of those who voted for a Republican president and increased the Republican seats in Congress and Republican governorships in the last election, which is my solace: the system, which as you say may not guarantee the right answer all the time, but which is the stable, dependable, enviable system we have, still works.

I do sincerely hope that the Republican and Democratic parties either already realize at base level or will come to realize that we share a common goal: preservation of this Union and Western liberalism in its older meaning. Intimations of fascism from what appears to be your side of the aisle are no more helpful than intimations of Communism from mine; both are hyperbolic in fact and to a great extent hysterical in tone. But my Lord, you people are sore losers.

Right on Jamie!, better said than my poor effort. Craig practices elitism pure and simple. He knows the Truth and it has set him free and makes him burn with a missionary zeal to enlighten the great unwashed. (just seeing how many cliches I could squeeze into one sentenance). I don't know the Truth and so am content to muddle along and be pleased by how well we are muddling.

Yeah the Republicans are stealing the elections, that's why 125% of the Milwaukee population voted in 2004, the Republican transportation was vandlized and all the adult population in Philly is registered to vote. And oh, how smoothly things always go in Chiago.

"You're right drool cup. Al Gore really did think he was going to put one over on the American people! He really thought he could claim credit for INVENTING the internet!"

In his own words he was trying to convey that impression. Sorry, but you can't avoid WHAT HE SAID.

Can you give us some evidence FROM AL GORE as to what he meant when he said he took the initiative in creating the internet? If not, you are left with nothing but your own hero worship, and Snopes' lame attempt to claim that he didn't say what he clearly SAID. Just point us to the evidence that (in Snopes' words, which they do not offer supporting evidence for) that Gore "was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development the technology that we now know as the Internet."

Put it right here, will you? Because as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, ARPANET and DARPANET long predate Gore's terms in the House and Senate.

I asked you for EVIDENCE that Gore actually DID anything to foster "creating" the Internet, and all you can do is drag red herrings across the stage.

As for him trying to pull a fast one? Happens all the time.

You again:

"And that he was the inspiration for Love Story! That he discovered Love Canal! Oh...and that the Clinton administration trashed the White House! And that Clinton's $400 haircut caused delays at LAX!"All of that is true! Right?

ROFL - you really have no idea, do you?"

You're laughably predictable: you won't deal with the points I raise, or address my challenges to offer evidence to support your case, but you WILL trot out other extraneous matter to put in my mouth!

It's very telling that you do that. It's the mark of a factually-challenged intellectual lightweight. You wouldn't know how to marshal a case if your life depended on it.

Enjoying the debate, but no amount of discourse changes that the Democrats have lost successive presidential elections that they should have walked away with. Clinton served during the greatest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history (and left just in time), but VP Gore couldn't even win his home state. In the middle of an increasingly unpopular war and a tenuous economic recovery (at least as depicted by the sky-is-falling media) John Kerry still couldn't knock Bush off. Quick aside: who thought the Democrats could possibly run someone in 2004 who was even less personable and more out of touch than Al Gore? Somebody won a bet there. Anyway, the fact that Democrats lost both races - and ground in both houses of Congress - under these circumstances is testament to how absolutely bankrupt the party is in terms of ideas and policies. Even with the benefit of five years of blame-proof hindsight Democrats cannot craft strategies that convince voters, and every performance that Al Gore gives only compounds that reality. Saddam Hussein? Attacked a neighboring country, has developed and used chemical weapons, could not account for the whereabouts of those weapons (should have taken his word for it, I guess), routinely shot at U.S. jets patrolling the no-fly zone, ignored about 20 UN resolutions, paid $25k to the families of suicide bombers (not supporting terrorism?), was paying off UN and foreign officials with oil vouchers...but just a harmless guy, right? Let's see, what else...how about Social Security? Democrats' official response to looming financial catastrophe? "There is no Social Security Crisis." Excellent, what a relief. No wonder American students are slipping in math. Have Republicans consistently tripped over their own feet? Absolutely. Even if the tactics are sometimes wrong the ideas are right. I'd rather be addressing the problems and adjusting my approach along the way than wringing my hands and doing nothing. And a free lesson, equating Bush to Hitler is such a joke that any person making that comparison instantly loses all credibility with rational people. Dems may as well run Cindy Sheehan in 2008. Backed another great horse there, guys. See you at the polls.

Osama Bin Ladin would like someday to travel to Gore's homeland and gives speeches about the supposed mistreatment of Muslims by Americans feels and has declared that because of that "mistreatment": "We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons..".

Osama Bin Ladin and Al Gore have much in common and but a few important differences.

1. They have lots of whack jobs as leaders who run in safe gerrymandered districts/states and never face hardball political challenges (Bill Clinton the exception). Gore's one of the worst of the lot, claiming to have been the inspiration with Tipper for "Love Story" and inventing the Internet and the whole "Alpha Male" thing with earth tones by Naomi Wolf or acting like a human robot. Cue John Kerry who pushed aside his genuine middle class background for his "pardon me do you have any grey poupon?" accent and "do you know who I AM?" attitude. Or Dukakis and the non-response to the hypothetical of someone raping and murdering his wife, Jimmy Carter's killer wabbit, or Howlin Howie's YEAAAAARRRRGH.

Note that Gore practically hid the one cool thing about him, he was Tommy Lee Jones's roomate at Yale. Bill Clinton won because he was who appeared to be, a slimmer Boss Hawg crossed with the Duke boys always on the prowl for a Daisy Duke. Instead of hiding his white trash roots he played them up (because there's more net voters in trailers than mansions).

2. The old populist coalition fractured over the Vietnam War in 1968 and the Party only wins when Republicans self-destruct massively (Nixon/Ford, the 1992 Republican Convention with Pat Buchanon's Kultur Kampf). Because the Party's core is progressivism, the elite on the coasts who's trustafarian or software new money plus racial spoils groups.

Reagan Republicans vote that way because Dems are hostile to their interests. White Union guys get the shaft with racial preferences and most of the Party wants to tax or take away cars, private houses in the suburbs, and introduce lots more illegal immigration which drives down their wages. Take away the small gains that make life worth living. Plus making public safety a joke because being safe is only for rich people in guarded mansions. There's nothing the matter with Kansas. Republicans offer a better deal just by showing up and not kicking them in the teeth.

3. Dem's post-1968 weakness in National Defense has only accelerated since 9/11. Post 1991 there was no Cold War and the nation took a long national holiday from the World. Hence Bill Clinton being intimidated by bin Laden in Somalia (binne aided the Somali attacks with training and tactics), or thugs in Haiti, or Saddam (pointless bombing attacks in 98-99) and so on. Americans are not happy with Bush's failure to come to grips with our enemies (IRAN, Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, Egypt, and the Palestinians) and hunger for unloading a good old dose of FDR ass-whuppin on Muslims so they never think 9/11 would be even halfway sane again. Unfortunately with the fracture of the old populist coalition the Dems offer granola, Cindy Sheehan attacks on American and Israel as "zionist occupiers" and "the worst war criminals in the world" etc etc. Not the massive smackdown (and ability to do it again and again) Americans hunger to unleash so we're left alone in peace.

There is ZERO appetite beyond Beserkeley or Ann Arbor or the East Side for Democratic culti-multi pc postmodern moral relativity. Unfortunately that's the Democratic Party these days (as useless as Lyndon Larouche and just as nutty) as witnessed by Gorebot's meltdown or the Anti-semitic flyers circulated at DNC HQ under Dean-o's watch during Conyer's first fantasy impeachment hearing (and described by the WaPo's Milbank) Ironic since Dean-o's wife is Jewish. But there you are, Anti-Semitism finds a great home in the new Dem Party of Code Pink, Moveon, Kos, and Sheehan/Moore.

Calling Bush "Hilter" and the rest when every late night comedian makes fun of him and he barely squeaks by with only semi-competent campaigns against dolts makes Dems look like the dried up smelly hippies they are. Rove isn't a mind-control genius. He just figured not kicking most of the nation in the teeth can get you elected.

"You're laughably predictable: you won't deal with the points I raise, or address my challenges to offer evidence to support your case, but you WILL trot out other extraneous matter to put in my mouth!

It's very telling that you do that. It's the mark of a factually-challenged intellectual lightweight. You wouldn't know how to marshal a case if your life depended on it.

Have another sip of the Kool Aid!

LOL!"

Are you kidding? Show me one point that you supposedly raised? You've beaten the dead horse that Gore claimed he INVENTED the internet over and over and over and.....In the process, you've ignored several, and I mean SEVERAL links to explanations and debunkings of that fallacious RNC talking point drivel.

You need to back up your statements and stop the disingenuous practice of accusing others of what you, yourself are guilty of. Namely: failure to make a point and back it up.

It's refreshing to hear a politician acknowledge that America's hysteria following 9/11 resulted in some abuses. This is true. The next logical statement is to apologize, the way one would apologize to a friend you'd mistaken for a burglar and menaced with a quail gun. Then you and the menaced/menacing friend sit down and talk about how to prevent burglaries without shooting innocent people in the face by accident.

Again Hawk, any voice that isn't in complete concert with the DoD regarding the WOT is guilty of what? Treason?

Once you calm down about Mr. Gore ask yourself whether the abuses Gore refers to (outside of the Visa bit - I don't really understand his reasoning there) might actually have unnecessarily ratcheted up the jihadists' fervor. Gore is right: Gitmo is bad for America, torture is bad for America, secret detentions are bad for America because they violate the values we stand for as Americans and give motivation and purpose (some might call it aid and comfort) to our enemies.

Deep breath, Hawk.

By Screwy Hoolie, at Mon Feb 13, 09:05:16 AM

That insane Gore also said, "Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Why!?! Did he say that most Americans are against torture and indefinite detention without a trial? Heresy! Traitorous Treasoner!

The completely unhinged, over the shark, loony maniac went on to talk about Iran, "Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous.""

Somebody stop Gore before he totally gets us nuked! He's saying that Americans aren't for torture and that Iran could be dangerous and that middle eastern nations would be well served by loudly opposing Iranian nuclear aspirations!

If you look at the main page, sonic, you will see that I felt my ass so kicked that I linked back to the Poor Man's post. Yes, sir, he made me his bitch, and I am so grateful for it that I linked right back.

There is simply no defense for what Gore has done here, for he is deliberately undermining the United States during a time of war, in a part of the world crucial to our success in that war, in front of an audience that does not vote in American elections.

You've got the same problem that the Soviet Union had - if telling the truth undermines your country and its policies, then you've already lost.

The US has committed abuses against Arabs and others, and the Muslim world knows this. Al Gore telling this truth doesn't affect that.

The majority of Americans disagree with these policies, and Al Gore telling this truth doesn't affect that.

Arabs have been indiscriminately rounded up and tortured by the US and their proxies, and Al Gore mentioning this turth doesn't affect that.

Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and the American invasion was a war of aggression, a war crime similar to that of Iraq against Kuwait. The whole world knows this, and Al Gore stating it doesn't affect that.

The US doesn't live up to the standards it loudly claims as its own. The world knows this, and Al Gore mentionng it doesn't affect that.

The USSR was morally bankrupted by the discrepency between what it allowed to be said in public and what reality actually was. You're complaining because Al Gore is a stumbling block towards the US following the same line.

Holy shit did The Editors kick your ass. This is why there are weight classes in sports like boxing and wrestling -- to keep the flyweights from being ripped limb from limb by much more capable heavyweight opponents.

By all means, though, feel free to get up off the mat and try again. Watching you get the piss knocked out of you is great entertainment.

I am writing to express my profound disagreement with your notion that discussing the mistakes of US foreign policy on Saudi Arabian soil is "repugnant" or otherwise indefensible.

One of the greatest problems that has engendered hostility to the US- the hostility that breeds terrorism- is the notion that the US is full of hypocrits who critize the faults of other nations while being blind to its own faults. People in places like Saudi Arabia become terrorists because, to be frank, they feel they have no other option.

When Gore went to Saudi Arabia- a country you accurately described as a breeding ground for terrorism- and frankly discussed our faults, he was not adding fuel to the fire. He was acknowledging and stating his own displeasure at the conduct that further alientated us from the Muslim world. he was telling those people who absolutely need to hear it that, yes, there are still some people in the US who see moral standards are something to be respected and not just a dodge to excuse our own misconduct. He was, in short, winning back some of the reputation for humanity that our country has lost in the so-called "Long War", by demonstrating his awareness of our grevious mistakes.

The fact that he spoke these words in Saudi Arabia, a country which has committed gorss abuses against its citizens, does not invalidate his message. You may have noticed that Gore is not, in fact a saudi Arabian and cannot be held responsible for what the Saudi government does to its people. And the Saudi people know fully well how bad their own government is. On the contrary, by speaking in Saudi Arabia about US mistakes, Gore is presenting a counterexample- a former member of government who is willing to acknowldge his own country's problems in a way that Saudi officials lack the courage to do.

This is not a example to be scorned or ridiculed. It is an example to be emulated. It does not engender more anger against us. It blows off steam by acknowledging those faults and discussing them openly.

Sincerely,

Michael B. English

PS- In regards to limiting visas, it is clear enough to me that Gore is protesting a system which, in his opinion at least, throws out the baby with the bathwater. I'm sure he is aware that nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure he would have taken measures to stop their entry, if he were in a position to do so.

It is much more likely that Gore was protesting the act of blocking visas for those Saudi Arabians who might otherwise benefit from first-hand experience of life in the United States, and not those Saudis who would blow it up.

I think apologizing for Kent State would be a great idea, why didn't someone do that? Think about it: we would be saying to our ideological opponents that we actually STAND for something and that it was an aberration. Otherwise what are they opposing in us except another mercenary country that will throw aside its convictions at the drop of a hat?

We should apologize for our mistreatment of Arabs. Why? Because we're the United States of America, you imbecile, and when we violate someone's rights it means something. Other countries can torture all they want, curtail free speech, stand for nothing but power, what makes our country different is like the lawman in the old west we are supposed to do it the hard way because the hard way is the right way to do it, and doing it the hard way often doesn't take force, it takes HUMILITY. Now go torture someone, Tigerhawk, because that's the kind of world you want to live in, it's here, and buddy: you deserve it.

anonymous, first of all, nobody apologized for anything. Gore simply ran at the mouth about an administration that he believes is criminal. It's what he does. It's all that he does. It doesn't matter who he says it to, as long as they are apt to believe it.

Secondly, you idiots can deny it until you're vomiting buckets of bile, but we are at war. We've been at war for decades with these jihadists, and Gore knows it.

Also, anyone who knows the mind of the jihadist knows that any admission of wrong-doing or guilt comes from the standpoint of weakness, not strength. Gore's run-at-the-mouth is seen as reason to destroy us, not seek understanding with us.

Gore's actions are those of a man who seeks acknowlegement for his submission. He's saying to the jihadists "don't kill ALL of us here in America! Give us liberals a chance to "win back" America from these evil, fascist Republicans, we'll invite Osama bin Ladin to the White House for 'peace talks,' and abandon Israel. I'm on YOUR side!"

"Humility" to these Islamist faithtul means being held prostrate so that your head can be effectively removed. If you liberals aspire to dhimmitude, then you're free to do so. That's what being an American is all about. I do not, and it's my right not to submit "humbly" to their fanatical whims.

I do not mind saying that this clash of cultures is inevitable, and that it will result in either he distruction of Western Civilization, or of Islam. One is anathema to the other. As long as one or the other exists, there will be jihad.

I don't know about you guys, but I like Western Civilization, with its freedoms and rich culture. As such, I'm against dhimmi clods like Gore (and even Bush) who submits to these Islamic tyrants.

Secondly, you idiots can deny it until you're vomiting buckets of bile, but we are at war. We've been at war for decades with these jihadists, and Gore knows it.

Which jihadists were these again - the Iraqis being rounded up and tortured, or Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? I forget. Is there anyone else you'd like to claim now that America has been at war for decades with? Iran? Syria? Venezuala? It's probably better to get that claim in now before the bombs start falling and you look stupid trying to justify wars of aggression after the fact...

Also, anyone who knows the mind of the jihadist knows that any admission of wrong-doing or guilt comes from the standpoint of weakness, not strength.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that Gore was speaking to an Arab audience, not "jihadists". Are we now supposed to believe that every Arab is a jihadist? I'm confused.

Also, are we to understand that Arabs believe that America has never ever made a mistake or been weak, and that Gore has shattered this illusion? Do Arab schoolbooks not mention Vietnam?

He's saying to the jihadists "don't kill ALL of us here in America! Give us liberals a chance to "win back" America from these evil, fascist Republicans, we'll invite Osama bin Ladin to the White House for 'peace talks,' and abandon Israel. I'm on YOUR side!"

You'll have no problems showing this using his own words rather than your paranoia, right? Try as I might, I can;t see the words "liberal", "fascist", "Republican", "Osama bin Laden" or "Israel" mentioned.

I do see him saying "Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong" and "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country." How exactly do you get from that to "we'll invite Osama bin Laden to the White House"? Please show your working.

I do not, and it's my right not to submit "humbly" to their fanatical whims.

This is the same Anonymous from a few posts ago, responding to the schmagoole who followed me: dude, if the choice is between them torturing and killing us and us torturing and killing them then that's all there is, we're brute beasts and the majority of humanity will promptly kill themselves, just give the go-ahead. What you're saying is that you want to grind "enemies" and innocents and children into dust and tell yourself that you're upholding an ideal and that Jesus would have done the same thing. Well, you're not, and you're the guy that killed Jesus.

In your world there is no western civilization, we're just sticking up for our right to turn the rest of the world into a ghetto.

I'm sorry to criticize a soldier in the field...that's what you are right? You believe in this stuff so well that you just responded to my post in your 10 seconds of R&R before going back out into Baghdad to patrol? Sure you love Western Civ, you love sucking down shakes from McDonalds and reading about who's being killed today to keep the tap open.

In your world there is nothing to fight for. In your world we're all dead already.

Phoenician, you must have your brain completely turned off. The ARAB WORLD is Islamist. To be Islamist in the ARAB WORLD is to be a Jihadist. To deny this is to deny reality. It is a mindset held captive that to war against non-Muslims is the highest service a Muslim can perform. Al Gore is NOT going to hold a speech where known terrorists are present, if you think that he would wish to communicate to those who wish to kill us. He's going to go where "respectible" Islamists and Al Jazeera there to report it to our ememies.

The war has been, and always will be a war against those who hold the Jihad as the highest service to Allah, and that doctrine is taught throughout the Middle East. If you haven't been paying attention, whole communities are raising the young to die in this war. Have you been living in a hole somewhere?

Every point of your "argument" is specious. Al Gore's speech could have easily been provided by Osama Bin Ladin himself. OBL has consistantly spoken on behalf of the liberal-wing of the Democratic Part using the same complaints and justifications as did by Al Gore.

Your posts are very cute, Phoenician. They don't make intelligant points, but they're cute.

Hi Nice Blog. In Egypt also boasts a broad multi-cultural community including Aboriginal and Torres Strait, descendants with cultures spanning 40,000 years. So next I will be one visitor of Queensland .any one let me know about Egypt visa.

We specialize in laptop battery,laptop AC adapters. All our products are brand new, with the excellent service from our laptop battery of customer service team.the most convenient and cheap replacement battery online shop in uk. We specialize in laptop batteries,laptop AC adapters. All our laptop AC adapters are brand new, with the excellent service from our customer service team.the most convenient and cheap battery online shop in uk.